View Single Post
Old 10-06-2016, 03:02 PM   #14
Tex2002ans
Wizard
Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Tex2002ans ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 2,306
Karma: 13057279
Join Date: Jul 2012
Device: Kobo Forma, Nook
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinH View Post
Honestly, why? In order to set asemantic, you have to mouse over it in the Bookbrowser which will show you what it is set to.
Side Note: I use Sigil every single day for hours a day... and I had NO IDEA the "hover to see semantics" even existed until Doitsu just mentioned it the other day.

Side Note #2: I have now also learned from BetterRed that you can also see all of the Semantics as a column in Tools -> Reports -> All Files. While ok for someone technical like me, this isn't a very quick/user friendly position at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinH View Post
You would only invoke the set semantics to actually change it and that makes the last set value rather meaningless, doesn't it.
I agree with nabsltd. The Sigil 0.9 redo of the Add Semantics is a giant step backwards. It becomes hard to tell at a glance whether you are turning a given Semantic ON or OFF.

That little checkmark was also really helpful when you were working on a book from an outside source (I could quickly just right click and visually see the Cover/others were assigned properly).

Sigil 0.8.6:
  • Has cover.xhtml, TOC.xhtml, etc. etc.
  • I right click -> Add Semantics
    • This file had a correctly assigned Cover semantic
      • See the little checkmark on "Cover"
      • Oh, great, this is already correctly given a Cover! I don't need to touch a thing!
    • This file did not have a correctly assigned Cover semantic
      • No little checkmark on "Cover"
      • Click "Cover". Problem solved.

At a quick glance, you can see which semantics are already assigned to the file (if any):

Click image for larger version

Name:	Sigil086AddSemantics2.png
Views:	247
Size:	12.7 KB
ID:	152196

Sigil 0.9.6:
  • Have cover.xhtml
  • I right click -> Add Semantics
    • This file had a correctly assigned Cover semantic
      • I have no idea if it has a correctly assigned Cover or not. So I push "Cover".
      • The Cover semantic GETS UNASSIGNED.
      • I continue to go about my business, believing I set the Cover properly, when I actually did the exact opposite.
      • If I right click -> Add Semantics again (maybe days/weeks later), I have NO CLUE if Cover is actually On/Off/What.
    • This file did not have a Cover Semantic
      • I push "Cover" and hoped it got assigned correctly.
      • Side Note: The first three or four times I did this in Sigil 0.9, I actually went looking in the content.opf. Luckily I know what code to look for to see if semantics were assigned correctly.

Relying on the Hover Method only is also very confusing, ESPECIALLY when dealing with the very common filenames that Sigil creates: "cover.xhtml" + "TOC.xhtml":

Click image for larger version

Name:	Sigil096Hover1.png
Views:	216
Size:	5.5 KB
ID:	152197 Click image for larger version

Name:	Sigil096Hover2.png
Views:	236
Size:	3.8 KB
ID:	152198

"cover.xhtml (Cover)" + "TOC.xhtml (Table of Contents)"

... You are telling me THAT is better than the easy-to-understand ol' checkmark image above?

And with a very long filename:

Click image for larger version

Name:	Sigil096Hover3.png
Views:	236
Size:	5.6 KB
ID:	152199

the semantics just get lost. If I didn't know what to look for thanks to Doitsu, I would have NO CLUE that "(Table of Contents)" was the semantic for that file.

Side Note: And who would recognize those more obscure semantics if they were in parentheses (Colophon, Epigraph, [...]). I sure wouldn't.

Last edited by Tex2002ans; 10-06-2016 at 03:29 PM.
Tex2002ans is offline   Reply With Quote